Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant's communication of January 23, 2025. The rejections are stated below. Claims 1-26 pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 is directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, analyzing, and processing financial transaction data to identify conditions or alert states” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice or commercial practices” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Claim 14 recites “method comprising:
obtaining, by a … and by subscribing to at least one topic of an … associated with a predefined set of payment systems or financial products, financial transaction data indicative of financial transactions associated with one or more accounts of a financial institution;
analyzing, by a …, the obtained financial transaction data to determine a present condition associated with the financial transactions; and
providing, by a …, result data indicative of the present condition to a user for review”.
These limitations describe an abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and processing financial transaction data to identify conditions or alert states and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice such as hedging).
Claim 14 also recites as additional elements such as “computing device, event streaming system” which do no more than implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: NO).
Further, as the additional elements of claim 14 do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve computer functionality or improve another technology or technical field. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 1 also recite the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and processing financial transaction data to identify conditions or alert states and corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (fundamental economic practice such as hedging). Claim 1 includes the additional elements of “a computing device comprising: circuitry configured …, event streaming system”. The additional elements of claims no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 2 and 15 each recite “wherein to obtain financial transaction data comprises to subscribe to at least one topic in the event stream associated with a banking industry architecture network code” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 16 each recite “wherein to analyze the obtained financial transaction data comprises to identify completed financial transactions and financial transactions that have not been completed” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 17 each recite “wherein to analyze the obtained financial transaction data comprises to identify completed financial transactions and financial transactions that have not been completed” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 18 each recite “identify rejections of financial transactions due to one or more of (i) insufficient funds and/or (ii) authentication failures” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 19 each recite “determine whether the present condition is indicative of an alert condition; and provide, in response to a determination that the present condition is indicative of an alert condition, an alert to the user” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 20 each recite “wherein to determine whether the present condition is indicative of an alert condition comprises to: determine a reference condition for comparison to the present condition; and determine whether the present condition deviates from the reference condition by a predefined threshold” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 21 each recite “wherein to determine a reference condition comprises to determine: (i) a historical pattern, trend, or average in the financial transaction data in association with one or more of a payment system, a financial product, or a geographic region; and/or (ii) the reference condition based on one or more contractual terms for a financial product associated with the financial transaction data” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 22 each recite “wherein to determine whether the present condition is indicative of an alert condition comprises to determine whether the present condition has one or more characteristics of (i) an alert condition; and/or (ii) an inability to pay according to contractual terms, fraud, a software anomaly, or a hardware anomaly” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 23 each recite “wherein to provide an alert comprises to provide a message with a … to present the identified alert condition to the user” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “link to activate a user interface” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 11 and 24 each recite “wherein to provide an alert comprises to provide a message with a … to present the identified alert condition to the user” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “link, email, text message” as an additional elements. The additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional elements do no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, they do not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 12 and 25 each recite “present the financial transaction data in a … to request an adjustment to a presentation of the financial transaction data; receive user input data indicative of a requested adjustment to the presentation; and adjust the presentation in the … as a function of the requested adjustment” which further describe the abstract idea. The claim includes “user interface that includes one or more user interface elements” as an additional element. The additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment. And, as the additional element does no more than serve as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or provide a particular technological environment, it does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claims 13 and 26 each recite “wherein to adjust the presentation comprises to restrict the presentation to one or more of a specified time period, a set of one or more financial products, a set of one or more payment systems, or one or more specified geographic regions” which further describe the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lack of Algorithm
Claims 1 and 14 each recite “obtain, by subscribing to at least one topic of an event streaming system associated with a predefined set of payment systems or financial products, financial transaction data indicative of financial transactions associated with one or more accounts of a financial institution”. Applicant’s specification does not enable a POSITA to make and use the invention for this "predefined set.". The specification provides no guidance on how to define, structure, or subscribe to a coherent, functional set of topics for the myriad of other payment systems, in other words, the algorithms or steps/procedures taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient details so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the functions to be performed (MPEP 2181 IV: MPEP 2161 01 I).
Claims 2-13 and 15-26 are rejected as each depends on claims 1 and 14.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
form the rejections under this section made in this Office action.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al. [US Patent No. 12,008,585 B2].
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses a compute device comprising: circuitry configured to:
obtain, by subscribing to at least one topic of an event streaming system associated with a predefined set of payment systems or financial products, financial transaction data indicative of financial transactions associated with one or more accounts of a financial institution (Col. 5 lines 19-31);
analyze the obtained financial transaction data to determine a present condition associated with the financial transactions (Col. 6 lines 21-27, Col. 8 lines 15-25); and
provide result data indicative of the present condition to a user for review (Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses wherein to obtain financial transaction data comprises to subscribe to at least one topic in the event stream associated with a banking industry architecture network code (Col.5 lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 3, Gupta teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to filter, with a predefined transaction code, financial transaction data associated with the at least one topic (Col.5 lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 4, Gupta teaches wherein to analyze the obtained financial transaction data comprises to identify completed financial transactions and financial transactions that have not been completed (Col. 6 lines 21-27, Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 5, Gupta teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify rejections of financial transactions due to one or more of (i) insufficient funds and/or (ii) authentication failures (Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to: determine whether the present condition is indicative of an alert condition; and provide, in response to a determination that the present condition is indicative of an alert condition, an alert to the user (Col. 4 lines 20-35, Col. 6 lines 21-27, Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta teaches wherein to determine whether the present condition is indicative of an alert condition comprises to: determine a reference condition for comparison to the present condition; and determine whether the present condition deviates from the reference condition by a predefined threshold (Col. 2 lines 24-35, Col. 5 lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta teaches wherein to determine a reference condition comprises to determine: (i) a historical pattern, trend, or average in the financial transaction data in association with one or more of a payment system, a financial product, or a geographic region; and/or (ii) the reference condition based on one or more contractual terms for a financial product associated with the financial transaction data (Col. 2 lines 24-35, Col. 5 lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 9, Gupta teaches wherein to determine whether the present condition is indicative of an alert condition comprises to determine whether the present condition has one or more characteristics of (i) an alert condition; and/or (ii) an inability to pay according to contractual terms, fraud, a software anomaly, or a hardware anomaly (Col. 2 lines 24-35, Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta teaches wherein to provide an alert comprises to provide a message with a link to activate a user interface to present the identified alert condition to the user (Col. 4 lines 20-35, Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 11, Gupta teaches wherein to provide a message with a link comprises to provide: (i) a link to present financial transaction data restricted to at least one of a time period, a payment system, a financial product, or a geographic region associated with the alert condition; and/or (ii) a message with a link comprises to provide the message as an email or text message (Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to: present the financial transaction data in a user interface that includes one or more user interface elements to request an adjustment to a presentation of the financial transaction data; receive user input data indicative of a requested adjustment to the presentation; and adjust the presentation in the user interface as a function of the requested adjustment (Col. 4 lines 20-35, Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 13, Gupta teaches wherein to adjust the presentation comprises to restrict the presentation to one or more of a specified time period, a set of one or more financial products, a set of one or more payment systems, or one or more specified geographic regions (Col. 4 lines 20-35, Col. 8 lines 15-25).
Claims 14–26 recite method counterparts to apparatus claims 1–13. For the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1–13, the method limitations are either expressly taught in Gupta or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T POE whose telephone number is (571)272-9789. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30am through 6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached on 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.T.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3692 /KEVIN T POE/
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights